What Are curators?

Jesus M. Rodriguez jmrodri at gmail.com
Wed Mar 3 14:20:57 UTC 2010


On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 8:50 AM, Bryan Kearney <bkearney at redhat.com> wrote:
> On 03/02/2010 11:24 AM, Jesus M. Rodriguez wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Bryan Kearney<bkearney at redhat.com>
>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> On 03/02/2010 11:18 AM, Dmitri Dolguikh wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Which Object? So.. if I look at he stuff we have today I see the
>>>>> following:
>>>>
>>>> model objects. curators also belong to the model.
>>>
>>> So. for you... is EntitlmentPoolCurator.refreshPools at the correct
>>> locatioN?
>>
>> to me it is :)
>
>
> OK.. what I got from this was that we are planning on Curators being both
> business logic and DB access. This is different from satellite (where DB
> access was in the factory and then managers did the business logic).
>
> Is this correct?

That's what it sounds like. In Satellite the managers handle all of the business
logic. The managers would talk to their respective factories and with other
managers, but not their factories. For example, UserManager could talk to
UserFactory, but it could not talk to SystemFactory, it had to go through
SystemManager.

Factories did all of the hibernate related stuff like findById,
saveObject(), etc.
Managers had security built in as well (sometimes) :) where it would filter
out things the user couldn't see, but we weren't very diligent with putting
the logic there.

I honestly don't care either way we go. The Curators were modeled
more from the Managers than the Factories, but if we want to add another
layer we can, but I don't think it bought us much in Satellite, the rules
started to break down as developers either by passed the managers
or bypassed the factories. So I'm ok with having both rolled into our Curators.

jesus



More information about the candlepin mailing list